GENOVESE, Judge.
Broussard Construction Company of Acadiana, LLC (Broussard) appeals the
On August 11, 2009, the District filed a Concursus Rule to Cancel Public Works Act Lien
On March 27, 2009, Broussard filed a Lien Under the Public Works Act against the District alleging that "[d]uring the course of performance of the work contemplated by the Contract documents, representatives of the [District] instructed Doiron and Broussard to perform storm-related debris removal at locations other than those identified in the Contract as modified by [Change Order Number One]." According to Broussard's lien, Doiron and, alternatively, the District owed him $1,153,000.00 for work allegedly performed in excess of the terms of the Contract and Change Order Number One.
The District's Concursus Rule to Cancel Public Works Act Lien prayed for judgment ordering the cancellation of the lien filed against it by Broussard and sought damages and attorney fees from Doiron and Broussard pursuant to La.R.S. 38:2242.1
On September 23, 2010, the District filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of all of Broussard's claims "because the terms of its [C]ontract for [the] debris-removal project in Indian Bayou/Little Indian[] Bayou with [the District have] been fulfilled." The same day, Doiron filed a motion for summary judgment against Broussard also seeking a dismissal of Broussard's claims.
On September 24, 2010, Broussard filed its own motion for summary judgment. Broussard's motion sought "identification of the Scope of Work of both the Original Contract between the District and Doiron, and the modifications to the Scope of Work made by Change Order [Number One] to the Contract...."
The trial court heard arguments on the parties' three motions for summary judgment on October 14 and 21, 2010. Broussard argued that the Contract and subsequent Change Order Number One were ambiguous and sought the introduction of
On November 30, 2010, the trial court heard arguments on the District's claim against Broussard for attorney fees. The District argued, pursuant to La.R.S. 38:2242.1(B), that Broussard, without reasonable cause, failed to authorize the cancellation of its lien against the District; therefore, the District was entitled to attorney fees from Broussard. The trial court granted the District's motion.
A judgment granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Doiron and the District, and granting the District's motion for attorney fees in the amount of $59,988.00 was signed by the trial court on December 30, 2010. It is from this judgment that Broussard appeals.
Broussard asserts that the trial court "erred in granting the summary judgments [in favor of] Doiron and the District[] and in awarding attorney fees and costs to the District."
Kleinman v. Bennett, 11-947, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/7/11), 80 So.3d 689, 691-92.
Broussard asserts that the amount of debris removed was five times more than what was contemplated in the District's estimate. Broussard contends the trial court erred in granting the District's and Doiron's motions for summary judgment due to genuine issues of material fact relative to the Contract's definition of the scope of work and relative to Change Order Number One's modification of the scope of work.
The District argues "that Broussard and Doiron twice (once in the original contract and [once] in the change order) agreed to perform all the debris removal for $204,000.00." The District claims, and Doiron concurs, that the Contract and Change Order Number One were unambiguous as to the amount of work the District expected Doiron and Broussard to perform for the contractual price of $204,000.00.
We find no merit to Broussard's argument. The terms of the Contract clearly state that for $204,000.00, debris would be removed from a certain specified section of Indian Bayou and Little Indian Bayou. The terms of Change Order Number One even reduced the size of the section from which debris would be removed without reducing the amount to be paid. At no
Pursuant to our review of the record, using the required de novo standard of review, we find no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgments in favor of the District and Doiron.
Broussard argues that the trial court erred in ordering it to pay attorney fees to the District in connection with the wrongful filing of its lien. Based on its interpretation of the Contract and Change Order Number One, Broussard contends that the lien was proper because the District owed it money. Having found no error in the trial court's finding that the Contract and Change Order Number One were unambiguous, we reject this argument. The trial court correctly found that the District is entitled to attorney fees incurred in connection with pursuing the cancellation of the lien filed by Broussard.
For the foregoing reasons, the December 30, 2010 judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against Appellant, Broussard Construction Company of Acadiana, LLC.